Ms Shreya Enterprises vs. State Of Haryana Ors

Held

The Court held that the issue raised in the present writ petition was squarely covered by previous judgments of the High Court in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others. Consequently, the instant writ petition was disposed of in the same terms as those prior judgments. The reasoning implies that the Court found the method of service challenged in this case to be either valid or invalid, consistent with its earlier rulings. The specific findings of the prior judgments regarding the interpretation of Section 169 and Section 146 concerning portal service are not detailed, but the Court's decision to dispose of the current petition based on them indicates adherence to established precedent. No specific operative directions beyond disposing of the petition were mentioned, and no issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shreya Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the validity of service of a notice and an order-in-original. The petitioner contended that uploading these documents on the common GST portal under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not constitute proper service. The revenue authorities, represented by the State of Haryana and others, were the respondents. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that this writ petition was filed before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading a notice and an order-in-original in the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the common GST portal (www.gst.gov.in) amounts to proper service on the petitioner, in light of Section 169 read with Section 146 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that such an upload does not constitute proper service. The revenue or State did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the court noted that the parties were 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue was no longer res integra (undecided) and had been concluded by previous judgments of the High Court. The petitioner relied on the principles established in CWP-27139-2025, Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others, and CWP-15601-2026, The Amar Cooperative LC Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others.